Both the answers are C.
Hope this helps! Please let me know if I'm wrong. :)
<span>to help industries plan production and curtail expenses
to nationalize the government's control of the work force
to provide employment through federal deficit spending
to provide jobs for African Americans and other minorities</span>
Explanation:
In simpler words, the multi-part question is asking for you to first analyze the three sources, then pick a side and have knowledge to defend your point on the question 'to what extent should nations pursue their national interests'.
In source 1, it shows that the majority of Canadians are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, with 36% voting for, 5% unsure, and 59% voting against.
Source two is clearly depicting the nazi's, at a rally held in Nuremberg. Although the source does not state if the protesters are pro or against Nazi regime, I am assuming they are pro. This would lead to the assumption that the people of Nuremberg are pro-Nazi empire.
The source 3 is a timeline, that goes from 1920 to 2005. This time period is very significant, because it captures many important battles, such as world war 2, Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq invasion.
After reading these three sources, you must decide if you think it is good for nations to pursue their national interests, or bad.
Hope this long explanation helped clarify the troubling question for you!
Answer: 11th Century
Explanation: Akan people are believed to have migrated to their current location from the Sahara desert and Sahel regions of Africa into the forest region around the 11th century.
Answer:
The second option
Explanation:
When countries enter pacts or alliances, theyre expected/obliged to support that country by either fighting with them or giving supplies. SImilar to how America is giving Ukraine money and weapons to help fight russia.
